Videos: Four Popes, two saints in Vatican canonizations

posted at 11:01 am on April 27, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Earlier today, the Vatican celebrated a special Mass for the canonization of two Popes, now-Saints John XXIII and John Paul II. That in itself was a historic event, but it also included another first — the presence of two Pontiffs. Pope Francis greeted Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI before the Mass:

For those who understand Latin — unfortunately, I’m not one of them — here is the conclusion of the canonization declaration and blessing:

Update: Here is another from Catholic News Service with more of the declaration:

Boston Globe reporter called the mood at the Vatican “Mardi Gras on steroids,” while CNN offered some of the festive scenes. Delia Gallagher discussed the mood at more length after the end of Mass:

In his homily, Francis described the pair as “men of courage” who bore witness to God’s mercy.

“They were priests, bishops and popes of the 20th century,” he said. “They lived through the tragic events of that century, but they were not overwhelmed by them. For them, God was more powerful, faith was more powerful.”

He paid tribute to the efforts of John XXIII and John Paul II to renew and strengthen the church.

The landmark Second Vatican Council called by John XXIII was of great service to the church, he said. That council helped to bring the church to the people, for example by allowing languages other than Latin to be used for Mass.

John Paul II, who served for nearly 27 years, is seen as the “pope of the family” and wanted to be remembered that way, Francis added.

It’s true that Vatican II allowed for liturgical celebration in the vernacular, but that’s only a small part of the Second Vatican Council and its impact on Catholicism. St. John Paul II was one of the philosophical giants of the council, and worked for the rest of his life to turn the Church from inward-looking to outward-acting. He himself may have been the greatest sign of that transformation in his visit to Poland early in his pontificate, a visit that lit a fire that would result in a popular uprising against Communist oppression that would eventually free half of the continent — while other world leaders were still talking about “peaceful coexistence” on a permanent basis with tyranny.

I have been following the preparations for this celebration with nostalgia and no small amount of wistfulness. The two-plus weeks of my assignment to the Vatican for the conclave were among the most memorable of my career, but this weekend I’m recalling my 2011 trip to Rome more. My wife and I planned that week around the beatification Mass for St. John Paul II, an event which we hoped to attend in St. Peter’s Square. We got within about a half-mile of it, as it turned out, but I’m not sure I would have chosen a better venue:

We knew it would be difficult to get into St. Peter’s Square on Sunday, but we had no idea it would be as impossible as it was. Unbeknownst to us, so many people had camped outside the gates (and inside before they closed it on Saturday night) that the issue of access was mooted by 1 am or so. We arrived six hours later, thanks to a cab driver who erupted in disbelief when I first told him I wanted to go to St. Peter’s Square. He got us as close as he possibly could, though, but it was far too late for us to even get within site of the square.

Instead, we hunkered down behind a big truck where a big-screen display and loudspeakers were set up to allow us to take part in the ceremony near the museum entrance. We couldn’t see the screen, but at least we could sit — and we met a number of other lovely people that day who stayed in the same area. This picture shows our friends Fern and Rosemary from London:

I wonder if Fern and Rosemary made the trip this time. Around three million of us crowded into and around the Vatican in 2011, and while we haven’t yet heard the final estimates of the crowd size, I’m betting this was larger. I would have loved to have returned for this event, but it wasn’t in the cards. My friends Kathryn Jean Lopez and Charmaine Yoest have kept me and other Twitter followers up to date on their experiences, so this time I’m experiencing it vicariously.

Besides, the world media has covered this with unusual vigor — and Peter Ingemi says that’s bad news for opponents of the Catholic Church, and of faith in general:

First you have the election of the first Latin American pope. It forced them to narrow their attacks to avoid any appearance of hitting Francis for fear of a backlash. Francis’ humble ways haven’t made it easy.

Then you have a Pope who using social media effectively. Millions of people follow his tweets in seven languages without a filter.

Next you have the canonization of Pope John Paul II, A man not only in the living memory of anyone 20 years old or over but who tens or even hundreds of millions of people alive have seen or met in person. In a celebrity obsessed culture A week’s worth of critical media stories on him can’t counter a someone able to say about an actual saint: “I saw him” “I met him” effect.

Pope John Paul II canonization might still have been an opening for division until Francis decided to schedule it together with John XXIII. Suddenly it became harder to split the various camps within the church for the ceremony of the Pope who started Vatican II.

Finally you have the first canonization ceremony of Pope Francis AND the presence of a Pope emeritus making it a four pope event something unheard of in history making it a story that the cable networks practically had to cover live.

Of all the things that have gone wrong for the Catholic haters since Francis’ election this is the worst. If you want to portray the Catholic Church as a bunch of stuck up bigots who hate woman or heralds of the anti-christ the last thing you want is people seeing a live mass filled with millions of the joyful faithful in worshiping in a setting and ceremony filled with the Holy Spirit.

Try explaining that away.

Speaking of explanations, let’s finish the post with Fr. James Martin, author of Between Heaven and Mirth and other enjoyable titles on faith. Fr. Martin gives a concise and easily-understood explanation of saints and their teaching role in the Church:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

My Catholic co-workers are ecstatic about being able to approach these two new saints for intercession and assistance. My boss also is Catholic; before the 2008 election, she compiled a list of 13 dead friends and relatives (in addition to her favorite saints), in order to ask their help in defeating Obama.

I, on the other hand, go directly to the top — God — whenever I need or want something, and to thank God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) for all of the blessings I have received. The New Testament is clear that we may go directly to God, without any human mediator. The risen Jesus, seated with His Father in heaven, is the only mediator we ever need.

“For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but [Jesus] was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.” — Hebrews 4:15-16

I once asked my co-worker Mike why he prays to saints instead of directly to Jesus. He said that Jesus is his “stern judge,” and that praying to saints is no different from asking friends to put in a good word.

I answered that Jesus loved him (Mike) so much, He died on the cross to pay for all of his sins, a one-time sacrifice that paid for them all. No saint, no friend could ever love any of us as much as Jesus does!

“Therefore He [Jesus] is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them…[Jesus] does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people’s, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.” — Hebrews 7:25, 27

Go directly to Jesus to express your thanks and your needs. He is the one who died for you. Accept no substitutes!

My boss also is Catholic; before the 2008 election, she compiled a list of 13 dead friends and relatives (in addition to her favorite saints), in order to ask their help in defeating Obama.

Maybe she only forget to pay/pray them out of Purgatory first. But I wouldn’t ask.

“Therefore He [Jesus] is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them…[Jesus] does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people’s, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.” — Hebrews 7:25, 27

I like Hebrews 10 for this better, culminating in verse 14. I once got in a big fight with some other Prots over that verse, lost several online FRiends over the dispute. [They started arguing six separate doctrines were taught in verse 14: “For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.” I could not agree and it got very heated since I am not generally a believer in Swiss Army knife verses.]

Francis means for the dual canonization to be a unifying event but it seems that this hasn’t happened. EWTN was only focused on John Paul II and my liberal parish is only focused on John XXIII. So good luck with that Papa Francisco; if he manages to get us to like each other, then he will be canonized a saint during his lifetime.

The use of the vernacular in the Mass was not an intrinsic part of the documents of Vatican II. The Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrocsanctum Concilium, called for an adaptation of the liturgy, in which the use of the vernacular throughout the liturgy was not an included provision. Following the Council, there was a process of the adaptation of the liturgy which took place in response to the Council’s provisions. The use of the vernacular throughout the liturgy was a permission granted during this process of adaptation.

I’m just thankful that I was a 20-30 something when Reagan, Thatcher, Pope JP II and Lech Welasa were on the world stage. It’s bittersweet in that it makes watching the destruction of this country that more painful.

Wow….just wow. You may not agree with the catholic faith but personally had you deigned to tell me that my prayer to the Saints was wrong i not only would have been offended by your audacity and unwelcome judgmental comments i also would have politely asked you to take me off your list of friends and acquaintances. you may not have meant it that way but you definitely have a bit of overweening condescension in your little speech. Way to be tolerant!

Nothing reinforces the idea of a church that helps the poor than when done amid priceless art and architecture.

Happy Nomad on April 27, 2014 at 12:30 PM

What you overlook is the truth. Poor who belong to a beautiful church often see it as the only beautiful thing that is truly theirs. They are just as much an ‘owner’ and member of the church as the rich person sitting next to them. It is the only beauty they have in their lives.

It’s a shame that in the past people would give much to make beautiful churches – which could be a part of everyone’s lives – and lived in modest houses that only they could experience. Now they give little to the church – to hell with everyone else – and live in bigger houses than they need – which only they and their personal friends can enjoy.

It’s a shame that in the past people would give much to make beautiful churches – which could be a part of everyone’s lives – and lived in modest houses that only they could experience. Now they give little to the church – to hell with everyone else – and live in bigger houses than they need – which only they and their personal friends can enjoy.

miConsevative on April 27, 2014 at 2:48 PM

I posted my comment somewhat tongue-in-cheek but not entirely. Yes, it used to be a competition as to which parish, no matter how poor, could erect the most beautiful church. But in 2014, while the Pope is preaching a bias toward poverty that sounds an awfully lot like socialism, we see the princes of the church erecting palaces with church funds. We all have read about Cardinal Bling in Germany but her in the US the Atlanta Bishop got nabbed and so did one in NJ who built his personal residence to include an elevator, commercial kitchen, and hottub. It isn’t poor immigrant families who funded these projects.

I posted my comment somewhat tongue-in-cheek but not entirely.
Happy Nomad on April 27, 2014 at 3:18 PM

I’m sure that, if you are a church-going Christian, that whatever denomination you belong to could offer up some juicy examples of venality and scandal, people being the sinners they are. No reason to restrict your humor to just Catholics, right?

But please; quit trotting out that bigoted old canard about the Catholic Church and the precious artwork it owns. I daresay that the Church spends a greater percentage of its income on helping the poor (which it does in every country on this planet) than you yourself or any church or organization to which you might belong. Catholics work for the poor and often enough die for the sake of the poor every year. First Christian Church of Wherever doing the same, or are they and you just satisfied with envy and rancor?

The beautiful things the Church owns were not the spoils of conquest, but were freely given gifts meant to magnify the Lord. Often they were and are the widow’s mite.

Now you may not like the fact the Church is the steward of priceless artifacts from a time when a work dedicated to God was considered the highest form of art, but selling them to Saudi princes and Japanese industrialists is arguably is not their highest and best use.

But, you know, when faced with the massive amount of global charity the Church administers every year- year after year, century after century, every penny and every hour freely given by the Catholic faithful, I guess it feels pretty good to complain about all them jools and gold and antiques dem Cat’lics hoard over there in the Vatican.

We do X, so Y doesn’t matter. That’s sophistry and you know it. Works based religions, IE Catholicism, is notorious for this type of banal defense.

It’s not so much the ownership that matters, it is the high esteem (pride) which you so admittedly state. Jesus makes this distinction in many ways, one being the lust of a woman. Just because you didn’t act physically, you are still guilty. This responsibility on a higher principle is not to be missed.

God is less interested in your idols than he is in the condition of your heart. This may not be taught the same in all orders of Catholicism, to whichever you belong, but it is the coherent message of Jesus. You’re right though, these abuses are not limited to Catholicism. It’s the same to the snake talking preachers, no one denies this. However the effect of a Catholic academy awards which draws thousands of people and much media praise is one that no other can match.

Jesus’s righteous anger at the religiosity of the time is quite relatable given the nature of today’s church. Be it Joel Osteen or Pope Francis. It’s disgusting.

I’m sure that, if you are a church-going Christian, that whatever denomination you belong to could offer up some juicy examples of venality and scandal, people being the sinners they are. No reason to restrict your humor to just Catholics, right?

But please; quit trotting out that bigoted old canard about the Catholic Church and the precious artwork it owns. I daresay that the Church spends a greater percentage of its income on helping the poor (which it does in every country on this planet) than you yourself or any church or organization to which you might belong. Catholics work for the poor and often enough die for the sake of the poor every year. First Christian Church of Wherever doing the same, or are they and you just satisfied with envy and rancor?

The beautiful things the Church owns were not the spoils of conquest, but were freely given gifts meant to magnify the Lord. Often they were and are the widow’s mite.

Now you may not like the fact the Church is the steward of priceless artifacts from a time when a work dedicated to God was considered the highest form of art, but selling them to Saudi princes and Japanese industrialists is arguably is not their highest and best use.

But, you know, when faced with the massive amount of global charity the Church administers every year- year after year, century after century, every penny and every hour freely given by the Catholic faithful, I guess it feels pretty good to complain about all them jools and gold and antiques dem Cat’lics hoard over there in the Vatican.

Dolce Far Niente on April 27, 2014 at 4:26 PM

Dolce Far Niente on April 27, 2014 at 4:26 PM

Amen.

miConsevative on April 27, 2014 at 4:30 PM

Well Done.

How come these critics never mention the sacred music in the criticism…just the art and the buildings that house them. Somehow it’s wrong for the Church to commission creative works.

Phooey!

As an artist I’m grateful for the history of patronage.

This custom of patronage for the arts is not exclusive to Catholicism.

unfortunately i am seeing quite a few bigots on this thread and it is disheartening. especially since the majority of it i am seeing from other “Christians”. so i am now going to be silent on this because God doesn’t like ugly and i refuse to be sucked into the mire of intolerance its such a sad state of affairs when Christians show their inability to be tolerant of other Christians…. you do the work of the Morning Star for him.

This new pope does represent an ongoing change in the Vatican in our lifetimes.

In the Fifties, John XXIII abolished the prior custom of addressing the pope only while kneeling.

In the afternoon following his election, the crowds had been kneeling down before him out of respect. Gusso recounts being approached by the Pope, who told him: “You can kiss my ring in the morning and say good morning, and you kiss it in the evening,” but that he was not comfortable being kneeled to.

Instead, when they would pass by the chapel, the Pope would open the door and say to Gusso: “Go to the Blessed Sacrament. Kneel before the Blessed Sacrament. I don’t want you kneeling before me.”

And, in 2014, the new pope kneels to wash the feet of ordinary persons, something of a theme of his papacy.

I think humility and service is the hallmark of a shepherd. Not that the pope is my shepherd, just that I find it…thoughtful. One could make many useful homilies out of this example such as the role and nature of a shepherd or a pastor, the need for genuine humility in those who would serve God, numerous instances of foot washing in scripture, etc. No doubt, those dusty homilies have been taken off the shelf and presented with a bit of new passion in many churches. This pope’s example also serves as a challenge to his priesthood to find ways to match his example and spirit in their own work. The best bishops inspire their priests most of all and this bishop of Rome knows it.

I liked B16 (and his scarlet Prada shoes and conservative theology) more than this new pope. He spoke thoughtfully in such a way that was inclusive of every strand of orthodox Christian believers so I saw him as a unifier, perhaps a quality that Catholics never noticed in his messages. He was the most genuinely ecumenical of popes IMO. But I noticed age is challenging B16 when I saw him today so he was wise to step aside. It can be cruel to force popes to die in office. JP II should have stepped aside as well but B16 has now set the proper example of popes retiring when their strength is fading from age or illness. It was a good transition and his successor’s reign did not begin in the grief following a pope’s death. In a hostile world with an epidemic of Christian persecution and an onslaught of post-modernism, no church can afford weak leaders who might linger for many years before they expire. Monarchies cannot afford to indulge in these lifetime tenures.

This new pope has a certain Italian charm and sincerity in his bearing as a pope and how he leads the hierarchy by example. I expect he will remain very popular, among clergy and lay Catholics and even with many Prot types and seculars.

Nothing reinforces the idea of a church that helps the poor than when done amid priceless art and architecture. Happy Nomad on April 27, 2014 at 12:30 PM

But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, “Why wasn’t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year’s wages.” -St. John 12 Akzed on April 27, 2014 at 2:41 PM

Ah! A “cut and paste” theologian! Happy Nomad on April 27, 2014 at 3:21 PM

Does the shoe fit or not? One should pause and reflect when he learns that he shares a sentiment with one of history’s great villains. I only pasted it for your convenience.

Oh I’m sure that he doesn’t even own a TV, because he gave that money to the poor and all.

you do the work of the Morning Star for him. katee bayer on April 27, 2014 at 5:54 PM

And whom do you mean when referring to the Morning Star? Please see Rev. 22:16, “I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.”

when capitalized the Morning Star would refer to the chief amongst those that once enjoyed God’s love most and threw it away as he fell from grace as in Lucifer the Morning Star not to be confused with reference to astrological symbols

when capitalized the Morning Star would refer to the chief amongst those that once enjoyed God’s love most and threw it away as he fell from grace as in Lucifer the Morning Star not to be confused with reference to astrological symbols katee bayer on April 27, 2014 at 8:54 PM

I didn’t say anything about astrological symbols.

And there are no caps in Hebrew. The name Lucifer shouldn’t be attributed to Satan. That’s a widespread misunderstanding. Isaiah is addressing the king of Babylon in ch. 14. There’s no reason to think it’s really directed to Satan.

See 2 Peter 1:19, Rev. 2:28. Are these references to Satan? The Greek NT texts I’m familiar with are either all in caps (uncial texts) or all in lower case. Some capitalize proper nouns.

are you Catholic? did you attend Catholic school? i was taught that Lucifer maintained the title of morning star until his fall from grace. once again you dont have to believe as i do but its pretty rude to tell someone their faith is wrong as you just did. meanwhile i am once again going silent i only responded because i was asked a question i have no desire to get into it with anyone all i want is to be left alone to practice my faith in peace.

brightest blessings and good night may you dream of peace with angels on your pillow.

What you overlook is the truth. Poor who belong to a beautiful church often see it as the only beautiful thing that is truly theirs. They are just as much an ‘owner’ and member of the church as the rich person sitting next to them. It is the only beauty they have in their lives.

This seems a rather parochial view of things. So the poor with ugly churches have no beauty in their lives?

Was the Sermon on the Mount delivered at St. Peter’s Cathedral during High Mass or on a hillside? The Pharisees had the Temple, what good did it do them?

It’s a shame that in the past people would give much to make beautiful churches – which could be a part of everyone’s lives – and lived in modest houses that only they could experience. Now they give little to the church – to hell with everyone else – and live in bigger houses than they need – which only they and their personal friends can enjoy.

Even if this were true, there would be some poetic justice in play here; the poor are “comforted” by their beautiful church and the rich are burdened by their ramshackle one.

Overall though, I think it’s a shame when we’re more concerned about the building people worship in rather than the people that worship in the building.

Now you may not like the fact the Church is the steward of priceless artifacts from a time when a work dedicated to God was considered the highest form of art, but selling them to Saudi princes and Japanese industrialists is arguably is not their highest and best use.

Dolce Far Niente on April 27, 2014 at 4:26 PM

This depends greatly on the specific artwork in question. A good portion of artwork at the Vatican or in the Vatican museums was either a) commissioned (Raphael, Caravaggio, Michelangelo, etc… or b) donated by wealthy patrons. For example, many pieces in the Vatican museum were gifts from governments. But there are many cases where the patron offering the commission was a church official (a cardinal, a member of the papal household, or a family member of the Pope, etc…). The artists in question, at least in the Late-Medieval and Renaissance period (ie. when the majority of the most famous works were produced) were paid handsomely for their efforts by RICH patrons. The Italian Cardinals of the Late Medieval and Renaissance period WERE the Saudi Princes and Japanese industrialists of their day.

Church work was much sought after because the Church had the biggest budget (from the pilgrimage trade and indulgences) and also the biggest venues to show off their work (construction of Saint Peter’s, etc…). There was alot of ego on the part of artists and their workshops and competition for this work was fairly intense (especially between Raphael and Michelangelo). Whether or not I “like the fact that the church is the steward” (actually, “stewardess” would seem to be more in keeping with the claim that the Roman Catholic Church is the Bride of Christ), is really beside the point.

The name Lucifer originally denotes the planet Venus, emphasizing its brilliance. The Vulgate employs the word also for “the light of the morning” (Job 11:17), “the signs of the zodiac” (Job 38:32), and “the aurora” (Psalm 109:3). Metaphorically, the word is applied to the King of Babylon (Isaiah 14:12) as preeminent among the princes of his time; to the high priest Simon son of Onias (Ecclesiasticus 50:6), for his surpassing virtue, to the glory of heaven (Apocalypse 2:28), by reason of its excellency; finally to Jesus Christ himself (2 Peter 1:19; Apocalypse 22:16; the “Exultet” of Holy Saturday) the true light of our spiritual life.

Obviously, the word cannot mean “light of the morning” (morning star or Venus appearing brightly just before dawn) and zodiac signs and aurora and the king of Babylon and a high priest and heaven’s glory and Jesus himself, all at the same time.

The confusion over whether lucifer is the devil can be attributed to Jerome primarily. His reputation and influence (and his Vulgate) are primarily responsible for this ancient conflict.

The Syriac version and the version of Aquila derive the Hebrew noun helel from the verb yalal, “to lament”; St. Jerome agrees with them (In Isaiah 1.14), and makes Lucifer the name of the principal fallen angel who must lament the loss of his original glory bright as the morning star. In Christian tradition this meaning of Lucifer has prevailed; the Fathers maintain that Lucifer is not the proper name of the devil, but denotes only the state from which he has fallen (Petavius, De Angelis, III, iii, 4).

Unfortunately, this particular theme of lucifer=Satan is a favorite of the typology fans. It is present among both Catholics and Prot types. So it is ecumenical in causing a lot of arguments in all camps of Christians.

It is an issue of translation and of sketchy typology over many centuries.

You might want to consider a Christian bishop, born to a Christian family, died in 371 who wrote fiery tracts against the forgiveness of Arian heretics.

Do you really think an ancient Christian family named their son Lucifer and that he was made a bishop with the name Lucifer if ancients thought it meant ‘devil’.

I’ll believe that when you show me any Roman bishops named Bishop Satan or Bishop Devil. No way.

So I agree with Akzed, mostly because Isaiah 14 describing the fall of the kings of Babylon, Israel’s hated enemy and captor and the superpower of the ancient world, makes no sense at all if you read it as lucifer=Satan.

Unless they are using some very old materials, I doubt that any Catholic schools still teach lucifer=Satan. I don’t doubt that many still did decades back so many millions of Catholics were undoubtedly taught this decades back, as were Prots in sermons and Sunday school and seminary.

It is an example of ecumenical ignorance and lack of scholarship, IMO.

I’ve heard the same thing preached before in Prot church and it really sets my teeth on edge. This is a real scripture pet peeve because it is so fundamental to Christian doctrine (who is Satan and what does scripture say about him). As I mentioned, it is a big favorite of the typology fanbois and, to me, this use of lucifer is the primary example of why typology is so often suspect teaching.

So I agree with Akzed and I do enjoy the chance to review the career of Bishop Lucifer of Cagliari, an overzealous and gutsy opponent of receiving the Arian heretics back into the ancient churches. He was way over the top. His adherents as bishop were known as Luciferians but no one thought that meant “Satanists”.

Was the Sermon on the Mount delivered at St. Peter’s Cathedral during High Mass or on a hillside? The Pharisees had the Temple, what good did it do them? EA_MAN on April 28, 2014 at 7:09 AM

Well, Jesus did call the temple His Father’s house. The Pharisees didn’t “have” the temple, the priests did.

Toocon on April 28, 2014 at 8:11 AM

There is a Greek NT text called Lucifer that may be named after Bishop Lucifer, I’m not sure. It’s in the apparatus of the Nestle-Aland text.

Also, the crucifer carries the cross in procession, the lucifer carries the light or torch, some call the candle lighter (the thing the torch bearer carries) a lucifer.

RC training manuals often warn against calling the torch bearer a lucifer since that word evokes Satan in the minds of many. I think it would be better to teach people the truth than confirm the errors of lay piety, but even this warning demonstrates that the torch bearer is/was often called the lucifer.

Funny how those who fancy themselves to be Satan worshipers who use the word “reverently” don’t even know what to call the object of their imagined worship. And the basis for their error is their misunderstanding of one word in a Bible translation.

you dont have to believe as i do but its pretty rude to tell someone their faith is wrong as you just did. katee bayer on April 27, 2014 at 9:22 PM

What we’re having here is known as a “conversation” or a “dialogue.” That’s when people talk about stuff that they may find interesting and maybe even debate things when they have disagreements. Sometimes people even call names and make accusations.

unfortunately i am seeing quite a few bigots on this thread and it is disheartening. especially since the majority of it i am seeing from other “Christians”. so i am now going to be silent on this because God doesn’t like ugly and i refuse to be sucked into the mire of intolerance its such a sad state of affairs when Christians show their inability to be tolerant of other Christians…. you do the work of the Morning Star [Satan, in your errant view] for him. katee bayer on April 27, 2014 at 5:54 PM

Thanks for the info but I think Bishop Lucifer was a bit of a firebrand and rather scandalous, daring the emperor to execute him in print, insisting the Arians could not be forgiven for their heresy (for which he was overruled), etc.

No doubt, his opinions of the Arians were not isolated. Many felt strongly against reconciling with the Arians but they lost that debate with the top church hierarchy and the emperors.